Print
EmailA new Census Bureau report is just out, tallying the growth from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008. Cities with universities do particularly well, with Raleigh, N.C. and Austin, Texas heading the list. Places with research centers also stand out, thanks to government spending: Idaho Falls is 8th fastest, for instance, and that may also explain the Tri Cities' growth rate, where the Kennewick region comes in 3rd.
Another plus is a state capitol. Olympia comes in 15th, Boise is 34th, and Salem is 67th. Here's how some other Northwest cities fare: Bend is 13th, Bellingham (with a university) is 39th, Denver (another state capitol) is 40th, and Spokane is 91st. As for the rivals Portland and Seattle, the Oregon city continues to outpace Seattle in growth, as it did all through the booming 90s, coming in 55th and registering a regional population of 2,207,462 and an one-year growth rate of 1.9 percent. Seattle, 100th on the list, grew 1.4 percent and now has a regional population of 3,344,813.
NewWest has an interesting discussion of these trends, noting how many fast growing cities are smallish, amenity-rich places in the Mountain West. The attractive formula is no longer big, sprawling, subprime-mortgage zones like Phoenix and Las Vegas, but instead affordable cities that are not too remote and have an anchor institution. Call it the Kennewick Syndrome.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate
It would be helpful to clarify what type of "region" they're talking about. I believe the Seattle numbers encompass King/Pierce/Snohomish.
Another alternative would be the larger Census metro definition that also includes Island, Kitsap, Thurston, and Mason, if I'm getting that right.
Still another would be "urban area," based on a series of arbitrary cutoffs and gray areas including contiguous area above a certain residential density, which is around horse-farms-plus-subdivisions level.
A fourth, often used when people say "city," would be for municipalities.
Personally I view "city" as the whole developed area you can see from an airplane and not the individual administrative zones we divide the developed area into, but since the term has multiple definitions it's necessary to be clear.
Trends will be substantially different for the 2009 numbers. Personally I don't know how, but there are huge trends to account for. The economic mess will be a huge factor as metros hemhorrage jobs at different rates, as people can't sell to move, etc. A big trend hitting the smallest metros hard (though populationwise I don't know) is the dramatic cutbacks/eliminations of airline service to smaller places.
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 1 p.m. Inappropriate
"Another plus is a state capitol. Olympia comes in 15th..."
This looks to me like a reflection of the tremendous growth in the size and scope of state government during the Gregoire administration. The monster is growing. Hand on to your wallets.
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 1:37 p.m. Inappropriate
If it's ok to throw off partisanship for a second...
Perhaps there are other factors such as Thurston County's lax growth management regs which have caused it to sprawl more than other counties, or the increase in force levels at Fort Lewis, which tend to cause nearby areas to jump their populations.
As for growth of State government, how much of that was new jobs in the Capital vs. new jobs elsewhere (teachers for example), rising health care costs, and other factors that don't involve population growth in Olympia?
Posted Thu, Mar 26, 2:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Sorry if my mention of the Governor's name sounded pointedly partisan. However, since one party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government, any criticism of state government will generally imply criticism of the controlling party. I, too, would be interested to know how the other factors mhays mentions effected growth in Olympia. But past experience would make me surprised to learn that the recent growth in the size of state government has resulted in more "customer facing" employees (like teachers and firefighters) than central bureaucrats.